Thats an easy one man. If you research the times that this was written, women were uneducated. None of them could read, write, etc. And most of them knew nothing about the written Hebrew law/rules. The men in that culture were the head of the household, religion, life, etc. Similar to the arab world today.

When Christianity came around, women were encouraged to learn (which was a radical change for the times), but were still discouraged from speaking or teaching because of the lack of education. They did not want women to teach incorrectly (although men were also warned about teaching incorrectly). However, if you look at the new testament, you will see that women were involved and even in roles of minor leadership in the religion, which like I said was radical for the time. Even in the Old Testament there were women prophets and women who were used by God to influence leaders. The Bible is certainly not sexist.

The Bible continually says that the man is the head of the household and the church. This is in line with all that.

so it can be taken literally then, women shouldn't speak in church. thanks.

Haha, if this is going to be the extent of your desire to have a discussion about this, this will be my last response to your posts. IN THE CONTEXT of the time, it certainly can. There is still a big debate among many Christians about women's roles in leadership, because there were women leaders in the Bible, but not in church leadership.

Also "church" was a different setup then than it is now. Its all a cultural thing, very different times when certain things were not acceptable and didnt make sense (at a time when women sat seperated from the men in in church in the Hebrew religion).

Haha, if this is going to be the extent of your desire to have a discussion about this, this will be my last response to your posts. IN THE CONTEXT of the time, it certainly can. There is still a big debate among many Christians about women's roles in leadership, because there were women leaders in the Bible, but not in church leadership.

Also "church" was a different setup then than it is now. Its all a cultural thing, very different times when certain things were not acceptable and didnt make sense (at a time when women sat seperated from the men in in church in the Hebrew religion).

well, then if it was just added because at the time women weren't educated is it still the "infallible divine word of god"? which parts are and which parts aren't?

also, could we add that "in the context of the times" to other things? like not eating shellfish? or being gay?

Thats an easy one man. If you research the times that this was written, women were uneducated. None of them could read, write, etc. And most of them knew nothing about the written Hebrew law/rules. The men in that culture were the head of the household, religion, life, etc. Similar to the arab world today.

When Christianity came around, women were encouraged to learn (which was a radical change for the times), but were still discouraged from speaking or teaching because of the lack of education. They did not want women to teach incorrectly (although men were also warned about teaching incorrectly). However, if you look at the new testament, you will see that women were involved and even in roles of minor leadership in the religion, which like I said was radical for the time. Even in the Old Testament there were women prophets and women who were used by God to influence leaders. The Bible is certainly not sexist.

The Bible continually says that the man is the head of the household and the church. This is in line with all that.

I would also be willing to argue that it would still be like that today if not for a lot of progressive non-theists who pushed the boundaries so that women, religious and not, can be educated, heard, and enjoy the same rights as everyone else in society.

Sniff around in 1 Corinthians 11 (where it speaks of a woman needing to have her head covered or have long hair to be honorable [and, likewise, for a man to have short hair, as long hair would be a disgrace]).

That is a great example of cultural relevance because, at the time of writing, the look of female prostitutes was to wear their hair short. Therefore, Paul is saying, and I'm paraphrasing, "DON'T LOOK LIKE A PROSTITUTE!!!".

Now, would this exist today? Perhaps if it was still the code of prostitutes to wear their hair short, but, thanks to those progressive non-theist prostitutes who pushed the boundaries by expanding their hairstyle options, Paul, if writing today, would have to modify his statements.

I just thought of a funny...it seems that a lot of the people who are strict constructionist (don't interpret the constitution, just read it as is), are the same people who want to interpret the hell out of the bible to say whatever they want...isn't that funny? not that this has anything to do with this discussion.

Even though your just trying to start a good conversation instead of learning I'm happy to see that you're reading the Bible

From your bud,
Drew

P.S. Too bad Cultural times and themes have changed

I know you're just joking Drew, but I honestly can say I'm glad that women are mostly considered equals nowadays. I don't think I would want to play the role of the patriarch in a relationship. How un-fulfilling would it be to have an uneducated sex robot for a wife...ok nevermind, Stevo's going to chime in now ;)

Much of the Bible is applicable to life today as it was then, like GeneralLee said, its instructions are timeless if you understand WHY it is saying the things it is. Realize, this was written 2000 years ago and is still extremely relevant to our lives today. There were some things that were just plain different at the time this was written.

In the exact same way, the gay issue is one of the few issues that is considered sin throughout the whole bible regardless of culture. Even in the new testament, which was written in the extremely pro-gay roman culture, homosexuality is considered sexualy deviant and sinful.

who was an atheist. I don't blame her, how can you believe in dogma that is holding you back as a person. It just doesn't make any sense.

Haha to say that Christianity holds women down is someone who hs never read the bible or studied ancient Hebrew/Roman/Arab times. Women were all but considered property back then. Christ was the first to say that women were saints with men and that women were to be "loved by their husbands the way Christ loved the church". They were made equals with men at a time when that was incomprehendable. Do some unbiased research with an open mind and I'm sure you will be pleasantly surprised.